Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Shelfrock77 OP t1_j3za4io wrote

Every city camera in the world is doing this all day zoomed in. Imagine how much data we will have.

6

No_Persimmon_5587 t1_j3zii1n wrote

I don't think there has been a time in history where technology has advanced more quickly than it's doing now.

Maybe the industrial revolutions.

113

jehehegjeieiueg t1_j3zok6v wrote

Replying to Shelfrock77 (#1,338,169)

Can you tell me more fancy words that I can use for my academicians? Edit : It’s not about technological word, the quote could make me pass those secret quality check points that the university follows, you know.. The professors have those orders from the quality control teams saying in this class only 2 students are qualified to get HD or A grade, doesn’t matter how much fantastic work you think you put, there are quality control people who make sure only some classes with certain criteria could gather certain grades for a certain number of students, say the subject is about mathematics and most students are doing bachelor of some accounting or finance. Then for some reason the whole average marks will increase because quality control teams think that those (good at math) students will cooperate with the others. Say most of the students have nothing to do with math, then surely they are all getting less than B.

Source : I worked very hard only to get B mark after a grade appeal, then I had to do some consulting to know more about those money making machines called universities.

see this advice.

−21

Clevererer t1_j3zrqsq wrote

What do the receiving antennas look like and are they directional?

2

overlordpotatoe t1_j3zsq6t wrote

VR will be so cool if they can reduce it down to a pair of lightweight glasses/goggles and have full body tracking without the need for controllers. It's probably not even that far off being possible.

38

Lyb0n t1_j3zvtin wrote

so all it does is sense the interference? can this map every object in a room with enough complexity? this is the perfect way to track motion without cameras and suits what the fuck

23

mafian911 t1_j3zx7vd wrote

I believe you can get this kind of tracking in the same room as the router. Perhaps thankfully, I doubt you can get anywhere close to this level of precision if it's in another room.

Still, I bet you can probably at least determine presence and direction through a wall. The signal is designed to penetrate.

2

Lewis0981 t1_j3zzjo7 wrote

Anyone know if they can do the same with a 5G signal?

−1

ML4Bratwurst t1_j4063vd wrote

As badass as this technology is, I am pretty scared about it. That's opening so many doors for surveillance

19

bemmu t1_j40a330 wrote

When we have near-human level deep learning models for things humans can do, what does this level of performance look like when applied to things we can’t do at all?

7

lutel t1_j40ednz wrote

This is fake. You won't be able to achieve such resolution due to WiFi wave length. Looks like scam for getting some investors money.

−4

GOU_NoMoreMrNiceGuy t1_j40oskz wrote

perfect for vfx, espionage and peeping in on your hot neighbor when her boyfriend comes over.

−1

ElvisArcher t1_j412n8f wrote

Replying to Lyb0n (#1,338,724)

It likely gets a baseline reading of immobile objects first, then removes that as a background "noise" layer, leaving you with "mobile" things. It makes me wonder how it would identify an oscillating fan, or a Roomba. Or, if a person stood still enough for long enough, would it become "invisible"?

6

ElvisArcher t1_j413f0g wrote

Replying to mafian911 (#1,338,806)

If implemented for consumer VR, there will likely be a dedicated "base station" putting out a clean signal in the room you are using for VR. It might not even be an actual Wi-Fi carrier signal ... i get the impression they were experimenting with "off-the-shelf" wavelength bands to see if the technology was feasible.

I would expect a consumer version of this to use a non-interfering frequency that was close enough to the Wi-Fi range that they wouldn't have problems with licensing with the FCC. Or maybe even use an ACTUAL Wi-Fi band ... and then let the installing user decide which channel that is (one that wouldn't interfere with their existing wi-fi).

3

Hvarfa-Bragi t1_j418ses wrote

Replying to lutel (#1,340,878)

You're not seeing the raw data, you're just seeing the resulting fitted model.

That model isn't showing the data underlying it, OP sucks a little.

It's like if I took a 3d textured model of something and stretched it over a kid's crayon drawing - the model here is much more detailed than the data that informs it, but all it's using is the positions.

6

Hvarfa-Bragi t1_j41av1i wrote

Replying to lutel (#1,340,976)

It would depend on the distance from the transceiver and the analysis.

Even with larger resolutions (poorer) you can use parallax and time distortion (movement and repeated sensings) to get better resolved.

I didn't see any finger positioning, but algorithms could easily infer the position of hands via inverse kinematics and position the maquette accordingly.

It would be helpful of OP to show the raw data visualization underneath.

3

cea1990 t1_j41g9nd wrote

Replying to Hvarfa-Bragi (#1,340,792)

Hardly the same thing. That requires someone to be on the other side of a wall. This development would potentially allow anyone to weaponize any Wi-Fi antenna for surveillance.

1

VRrob t1_j428uuj wrote

Oops, just discovered tech the military has had for decades.

1

XoxoForKing t1_j42cx7g wrote

Replying to clearlylacking (#1,342,822)

I don't really know if there are medical uses in regards to bone conductivity, but the echo is used commonly for the ultrasounds - the question is whether current technologies would be able to make a wider analysis with the correct setup

1

JVM_ t1_j42esqj wrote

Replying to bemmu (#1,339,352)

I mean, you can't blend as fast as the blender in your kitchen. You can do the same motion and number of repetitions, but the machine is much better than you at it.

I think we're at the same step in the industrial/data revolution.

Humans CAN do things, but AI can do them much quicker and faster.

A blender still needs human input, and a human to decide what and when to blend something.

A blender or Roomba wasn't envisioned when electric appliances started to be invented, maybe the world will be a better place with AI tools that we can't envision yet? Here's hoping.

---

AI assisted chemistry so that we can refine oil out of the atmosphere?

AI modified plants/photosynthesis to create oil/sugars/plastic out of the atmosphere?

We already have AI that can model proteins folding sequences, and protein language is just another thing for the language models to learn. Here's hoping for a better world.

3

cea1990 t1_j430a0i wrote

Replying to Hvarfa-Bragi (#1,341,463)

So what are you arguing? That because SOF/SWAT uses a local tool in specifically targeted scenario, I should not be concerned about this new technology that democratizes remote surveillance in a way never before seen?

2

cy13erpunk t1_j43m65f wrote

Replying to No_Persimmon_5587 (#1,338,071)

this is what exponential growth looks like

afawk aside from the theory of previously advanced civilizations that then disappeared , we have never been advancing as fast as we are today

and tomorrow that same statement will continue to be true , ad infinitum

1

relevantusername2020 t1_j43u4up wrote

holy shit i was half jokingly suggesting this not that long ago but i didnt think it was possible - especially not that accurate

1

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_j441f0g wrote

I had a friend tell me about this several years ago, I thought he was bullshitting. This means that whoever can literally get a visual image of your home at all times.. that's terrifying.

1